Talk:IB Group 3 subjects

ITGS

this article does not inform me in the slightest about ITGS so why was i redirected here from that article? And what happened to that article?

If I am taking ITGS in 2006, with my exam in November, how does the 'first exams in 2007' bit work?

Concerned about the external links —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.36.186.57 (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge

I don't think IB Psychology SL serves any purpose whatsoever as a separate article, seeing as it's only about a single level of a single subject of a single educational programme. I somehow doubt that even these articles about the subject groups would survive an AFD (and yes, I am aware that I created them), and I'm quite sure that the psychology article wouldn't. The reason why I originally wanted to have articles for the subject groups instead of individual subjects is that the topic is not really encyclopaedic anyway, and having lots of them that are essentially either copies from IBO documents or OR seems a bit too much. - ulayiti (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. IB Psychology SL definitely needs to be merged. To be honest, most of the content of it is unecessary and irrelevant here. Maybe there's a place for it in wikibooks or otherwise it should be put up for AFD. Spaztic ming 16:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't think it should be merged. Perhaps there should be one topic for "IB Psychology," though...add an HL section and rename the article just IB Pyschology. -- Cielomobile ^{minor 7} 05:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree. i see no reason why economics should be merged, but not psychology. Rainbell 05:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree - it should be merged with group 3 subjects. If this article were to stay, that would mean each IB course would need it's own article (IB Math, IB Biology, etc.). Either merge this one into it's appropriate group's article, or create a separate article for each course like it is with the AP program. -Kevin23 21:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge per Kevin23 ~ G1ggy! _{...chatterbox...} 04:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Slight rearrangement and citations

I moved the History SL & HL section to the top, since this is likely the most frequently taken of all of the Group 3 courses. Also, I really think we need to provide some more citations. Regards, CinchBug | Talk 16:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Fordham Report

Hi, ObserverNY. Regarding the Group 3 article, I noted that you included a reference to the Fordham Report. If a reference to that is to be included somewhere, I should think that it would more appropriately be done on the IBDP page, not in the article about the subjects or as part of the description of the individual courses. It's been suggested before, I seem to recall, that the IBDP article could have some sort of "Evaluation and criticism" section, in which the Fordham Report might be included.

Having said that, however, I'm not impressed with the Fordham Report, and not just because of the controversy surrounding it. I've read the whole thing (though it's been some time since I did so) and I feel they properly represented neither the AP courses nor the IB courses they reviewed and compared. These courses (both the AP and IB) are a lot more robust, challenging, and beneficial for HS students than is suggested.

I should really go back and read it again to bring my recollections back up to date. But, at present, I don't think we should reference the Fordham Report at all, because I think they didn't do such a good job on their assigned task. If it must be referenced, though, then I think the IBDP article is the appropriate place for it.

I likely won't be able to re-read it today, however, since I need to go into school to help begin the data analysis of our school's IB exam results. Regards, CinchBug | Talk 16:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

ObserverNY, well, I re-read the Fordham Report this morning and I'm still not impressed with it, I'm afraid. So I maintain my position that it really shouldn't be referenced at all. However, since there doesn't appear to be any other objective attempt at the evaluation or comparison of AP and IB courses, then, if it must be mentioned, I still think it could be included in an "Evaluation and criticism" section on the IBDP article.

But given that the article about Group 3 subjects is not intended to discuss education in any particular country, then I really don't see how it is appropriate to include it on that page.

(Edit: I also wasn't able to get the link from your citation to work. But I did a quick search in Google and found the following link:[1])

What do you think? Regards, CinchBug | Talk 14:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• (Still thinking! Will post later. TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 16:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC))

• Cinchbug asked my opinion re: the Fordham report, which I've just scanned. Two points: 1.) the placement in the Group 3 article of the remark about the American History course and the Fordham report lacks integration in my view; 2.) the report mentions the "sole" history course. Don't students take American History before the Diploma in the earlier years? And a final comment: as the article is for Group 3 worldwide, the Fordham report appears to be too specific (US centric) as it's currently written. The sources Uncle G posted on the IB DP talkpage have some mention of teaching history, which in my view would constitute more robust verification and be accessible to students outside of the US.
• Also as per discussion below, I suspect the course is the history of the Islamic world. Have other obligations now, but will search for info and post below.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Any other thoughts about whether this reference to the Fordham Report should be on this page? Again, I think it would be better placed on the IBDP page, if placed anywhere at all. Regards, CinchBug | Talk 19:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the reference to the Fordham Report should be on the Group 3 page, for a number of reasons, of all which have been mentioned above. But if it is, then the quote chosen from the report should reflect the evaluation of the World History SL component, not the HOA HL course, which was not evaluated. Here is a less US-centric quote, and more relevant to the World History SL course and exam that was evaluated: “The guide ... examined has first-rate content, and the assessment materials align nicely with the materials and skills for which they are designed. Students enrolled in the IB World History course not only learn some important twentieth-century history, but they also learn to think as historians. They must become comfortable with primary and secondary source materials, and learn to balance and weigh a wide variety of interpretations and opinions about the same event and then draw their own conclusions.” Cheers La mome (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

La mome, in the interest of NPOV, it would also be necessary to include a remark about the report's finding that IB World History SL doesn't require sufficient material on the history of the US to be the sole course in US history for US students (as well as a summary of other criticism of the course). And possibly also for the IB World History HL HOA Option, since they did do some study of the course and found that it, too, required too little US history.

Of course, having said that, I realize that this may introduce an inappropriate US-centric aspect to the article and that it would also venture outside of the purpose for the Group 3 article. So, once again, I humbly suggest that we create an "Evaluation and criticism" section on the IBDP page. Something similar exists at the A-level article. However, I should point out that we'd have to create a fairly detailed analysis of the Fordham report in order to present an objective summary of its contents.

As I said above, I really think the Fordham Report isn't worthy of inclusion here--in fact, I don't think it's worthy of inclusion anywhere on Wikipedia. I believe that they had good intent, but bad execution with respect to both the AP and IB courses. Still, I'm willing to include something like this--that is, a complete summary of the report--on the IBDP page, if consensus dictates such.

Thoughts, La mome and company? Regards, CinchBug | Talk 22:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the Fordham Report is not worthy of inclusion. Why include it in one section, but not others? If it was not peer-reviewed and there was controversy over the conduct of research and reporting, then why include it all?

I think having an "Evaluation" section of the IBDP is a good idea. If you are going to tack on "criticism" then in the interest of NPOV, it should be "Evaluation: praise and criticism" or something to that effect.

La mome (talk) 22:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If it's to be included, I really don't think it would be appropriate in any of the Subject Group articles (Groups 1, 3, 4, and 5 contain the courses evaluated in the report). But I certainly agree with your suggestion that we title the proposed section something like "Evaluation: praise and criticism" on the IBDP page. Seems reasonable to me. Regards, CinchBug | Talk 22:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• General thoughts about the report and it's placement here, not necessarily following on chronologically from comments immediately above. I tend to agree that this article isn't the best place for it - I'd suggest the US section of the IBDP article might be a better place. That said, I'm not sure how relevant it is - it was published in 2001, and acknowledges that the course it examined would end in 2007 ("We reviewed the 2001 document, but a new document is slated to be used beginning in 2008.") Beyond that, I don't think I have enough (any!) knowledge of the US history syllabus to comment (for those of you who don't know, I did study history at university, but in the UK - and I've never studied in the US) - would the History HL be taken in isolation, for example? i.e. would a HL student normally be expected to have taken other - US-specific - history classes? The report seemed to suggest that students may or may not do this: "For students who have previously had a good survey course in U.S. history, the IB Americas option is an attractive course....if students lack this background, the Americas option offers, at best, a cursory survey of the highlights of our past". Note that I do tend to agree that history students - in the US and elsewhere - should study the US in some detail. I gather the US has played a slightly important role in recent history ;-) Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 22:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

TFOWR, actually, they published their report in 2007, I think. I'll verify that at the link above. But they used the subject guides that were current at that time. As we established below, the curriculum has recently changed with the scheduled 6-year review cycle.

However, in all honesty, it seems likely to me that the authors' opinions about the amount of US history, even in the new curriculum, would probably be unaffected. That's just my opinion about...their opinions, of course. But the bigger question is to the relevance of their opinions, especially here at the Group 3 article, which you addressed.

And I'm inclined to agree that the US has played, as you said, "a slightly important role in recent history." ;) As for the rest of your comments, I'll need to read them again in greater detail. Regards, CinchBug | Talk 23:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh, you're right - bit difficult to consider exams and markschemes from 2004-2006 back in 2001 ;-) Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 23:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Nah, that's an easy mistake to make. People reading this need to understand how this stuff is published and what the dates mean. For example, in the IB mathematics courses, our last curriculum review essentially ended in 2004 and the new documents were published so that teachers would have them in time to teach students who were examining in 2006. That is, they needed to have them by the fall (autumn, for clarification) of 2004. So, while the guides were originally published in 2004, their covers say, "First examinations May 2006."

(Additionally, they made some small but noteworthy modifications that went into effect for "First examinations May 2008." These documents were, of course, published in 2006. ;) )

Regards, CinchBug | Talk 23:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Cinchbug - Thank you for the heads up on the discussion over here. After my "experience" at the IBDP page and my word to you that I would not tinker with your fine edits to the Subject section, I certainly didn't think it would be a "big deal" to insert a reference to an independent report which specifically points out the flaws of the IB HL History of the Americas course in the History section on its own page. Obviously it was and I see LaMome is back to her old tricks and deleted the reference. IB supporters like Jay Mathews cite the Fordham Report in his WAPO articles as proof of IB's "gold standard". From day one, my biggest issue with IB was the biased and limited presentation of U.S. History to American students. In most public schools, U.S. History is taught in 11th grade and Representation in U.S. Government and Economics (each 1/2 yr. courses) taught in 12th. By substituting IB HL History of the Americas and its limited 100 year scope for these 3 courses, American students are not only being deprived of valuable historical information, they are being short-changed in economics and the way our government (ahem) USED to work. Our HS used Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States as the primary textbook for this course, that would be the same Howard Zinn who has written essays denouncing the Pledge of Allegiance and who is recognized as an international socialist. To answer TFOWR's question, in 9th and 10th grades, American students study World History. Surely you are not suggesting that any history children learned before HS is the equivalent of college-level work?

Frankly, I am sick and tired of the biased hunt and attack by LaMome and it needs to stop. But you know what? I really don't care what she does anymore. She doesn't think a reference to the ONLY independent study conducted by an Institute on AP/IB to date "is worthy of inclusion"? Go right ahead and delete it LaMome. Oh wait, you already did. Apparently Uncle G's admonishment went in one ear and out the other. ObserverNY (talk) 11:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Thanks for the answer, ObserverNY, but I'm afraid it's left me as ignorant as I was before (i.e. very ignorant ;-) ) - what I'm trying to understand is: is there a requirement that students study US history? If so, would they study US history prior to doing the HL? If not, then the Institute's concerns would appear to be quite valid (also: I'm assuming that 9th and 10th graders correspond to around 14-15 years old - is that correct? I guess I don't really need to know, but it's helpful to know the context).

Regarding LaMome Your disagreements with other editors - could both of you stop this? I really don't need to be constantly retold that you have or have not met before, or that you have some kind of disagreement on Wikipedia or off. It's this conduct that creates the kind of poisonous atmosphere that arose at IBDP. I'd prefer it if both of you were able to contribute constructively to these articles without constantly sniping at each other, but if you both can't do that I'll consider the whole gamut of WP:DR options.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 11:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

TFOWR-I don't understand how removing a comment and a reference constitutes "sniping" when everyone has agreed that is not a valid source for various reasons, both here and other user talk pages. The consensus appeared to be that if it is included at all, then it should be included on the IBDP page, under the US section, or under a new section called "Evaluation," where studies and reports praising or criticising the programme would be included. I have not "sniped" at ObserverNY and in fact I offered praise for the addition of the mission statement and "no objections" to the placement and new title for what was formerly called "Fees/costs." So much for "good faith." La mome (talk) 12:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

(Blushes) You're right, I was thinking of another editor. Apologies. ObserverNY, comment on content, not contributors. LaMome, my apologies again. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 12:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

ObserverNY, I'm afraid I have to disagree with your assessment of what has transpired. When you inserted that reference from the Fordham Report, you seem to have done so in order to insert something that supports your point of view, not to keep the article objective. (In fact you appear to have considered that this might be the case in your comments on TFOWR's Talk page). After all, the Fordham Report not only offers up some criticism of the course, it also offers some praise for the course. I'm not sure that it's appropriate to include one and not the other on a WP article.

Regardless, I don't think this is the place for this information. If information about the Fordham Report is to be included somewhere at WP, then I have suggested--several times in fact--that this be done in a new section on the IBDP page, which La mome and I have tentatively agreed could be called something like, "Evaluation: praise and criticism," though I'm sure the name for the section can still be debated. But as I pointed out above, this would require a complete and objective summary of the entire report, otherwise we'd be introducing a non-neutral POV to the article.

I've been talking about this issue for nearly two days here at WP (about 41 hours, to be more precise), first at my Talk page in response to a comment you made there about the IBDP history section on the IBDP page, then at TFOWR's Talk page, and finally I moved the discussion here at Truthkeeper88's suggestion, which is certainly the most appropriate place for it.

So I'm unclear as to why you think that La mome's edit to the article is an example of a "biased hunt and attack." Instead, it seems to me to be that she edited in accordance with what appeared to be the consensus at the time. Regards, CinchBug | Talk 12:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

TFOWR, well, there's no standard point nation-wide in a US student's high school career when they are directed to study US History. It's true that it does often fall into the last 2 years of high school, with US government being taken in the last year of high school. But we have no standard national curriculum, so individual states and, to some degree, individual school districts can arrange these courses as they wish. Students will have studied US History in earlier grades, of course, though not to the same level of detail nor with the same analytical eye as would be done in high school. Regards, CinchBug | Talk 12:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks CinchBug. I think the only part I'm missing now is: should students have studied US history prior to graduating high school (i.e. is it part of their college entrance requirements, or high school graduation requirements?) This is all kind of moot, as I think there's a general consensus that the Fordham Institute link shouldn't be here, so feel free to divert your answer to my talk page if you want. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 12:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

TFOWR, I'll go ahead and reply here for consistency. While I haven't checked the requirements for all 50 states, I'm quite confident that students are indeed required to study US history in order to earn a diploma in their respective states. Regards, CinchBug | Talk 12:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I clicked "watch" on TFOWR's, Truthkeeper's and Cinchbug's talk pages. I had no idea this talk page was created until Cinchbug gave me the head's up, I never received a "You have new messages" notice from WP regarding any of these discussions, and only just this morning became aware of this page. It would have been "polite" of LaMome to have notified me of her intent to remove my reference and these discussions. Cinchbug operated in "good faith". This discussion could have been had on the IBDP talk page, not all over creation. I believe it was on TFOWR's talk page I mentioned that other editors should feel free to elaborate on The Fordham Report. That's how balance is achieved. The quote I referenced was specific to IB HL History, and therefore appropriate for the IB HL History section in Wikipedia.

By all means create a "Praise and Criticism" section on the IBDP. Balance is a good thing. For example, someone may want to quote Jay Mathews as saying IB "is a bit better than AP because of the EE". I, in turn, should be allowed to state the fact that Mathews' book was co-authored by the ADG of IBO and published by an IBNA Board member. This is a fact, not opinion, and it would be up to the reader whether Mathews' positive opinion of IB as an educational journalist has been financially biased by IBO. Thanks. ObserverNY (talk) 12:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY, with the intent of ensuring that you were kept appraised of what was happening, I included a remark about moving the discussion to this Talk page at both my Talk page and TFOWR's Talk page. It's unfortunate that it didn't come to your attention.

As for Jay Matthews, I'm of the opinion that he wouldn't be the best source to use, in part because of the issues you raised about him and his book. Regards, CinchBug | Talk 12:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I credited and thanked you for the head's up, Cinchbug. I find it interesting that you cite my factual "criticism" of Jay Mathews and it makes you feel as though he shouldn't be used as reference at all! Hide the fact that Mathews is probably THE only educational journalist for a major U.S. newspaper and magazine (Newsweek) who openly and enthusiastically heaps "praise" upon IB in the country where 1/3+ of ALL of the IBDP programmes have been purchased! He attends the annual IB Conferences. His Best Schools list that was immediately amended to include IB in its 2nd year and is based soley on participation, not pass rate on AP/IB exams. He is a MAJOR media influence and school administrators quote him right and left (mostly left ;-)) to justify IB. ObserverNY (talk) 14:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

P.S. - The Mathews' example is but one of a series of objections I expect to encounter if a "Praise and Criticism" section were to be created. I stated a simple fact to "balance" a stated "praise". If someone were to post "praise" from an admissions officer re acceptance of IB, I would want to post the quote from the admissions officer at Georgetown who doesn't feel IB is comparable to AP. Then people would say, "Oh this section is getting too long. Let's eliminate statements from admissions officers altogether" You see how it goes? There is a pattern of pro-IB behavior. It's called suppress, divert and obfuscate. I'm bored. It's a beautiful day. Cheerio for now! ObserverNY (talk) 14:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

"History (including Islamic History)"

Any idea why we need to note that History includes Islamic History? Is there any reason why History wouldn't include Islamic History? Are there any other histories we should note that History includes?!

Seriously, there may well be a good reason for this - in which case we should explain it. If not, I propose we drop the "includes Islamic History" bit and assume the reader is smart enough to realise that Islamic History is part of History!

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 16:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

As I posted on your Talk page, I have no idea why they gave it that name, but it is the name of a course in Group 3. See [2]. Maybe they're trying to offer a course that would be attractive to some Muslim international schools? I don't know. Regards, CinchBug | Talk 16:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I have an answer to this question. I looked at the most recent versions of the subject guides for history, and it turns out that we're in the middle of a transition: each subject goes through a scheduled 6-year curriculum review cycle, and the new subject guides were just adopted.

While, through the May 2009 exams, there was a course called "Islamic History," there is no longer such a course (looking at the curriculum, "History of the Islamic World" would have been a good title for the course). It has been replaced by "History of Europe and the Islamic World." This is one of the two major options students have in the study of history within the IBDP. The other option is "20th Century World History," and at HL it has similar options as before (ie. focusing on regions: Africa, the Americas, Asia and Oceania, and Europe and the Middle East).

As we're in the middle of the transition, the IB page that talks about Group 3 subjects hasn't been updated yet. As such, I'm going to remove the reference to "Islamic History" and leave it as simply "History." Within the section on the Group 3 page about the History course, someone can flesh out the details of the various paths/options. Regards, CinchBug | Talk 17:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. I think when the new subjects are known, and added to the article, we should phrase it differently - the phrasing used for Islamic History left me very confused ;-) Cheers - and thanks for doing the research! TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I agree. The old course was actually called "Islamic History," even though that may not have been the best descriptor available. The new title seems a bit clearer. I'll try to contact some of the IB history teachers I know and see if they can come in to update that section in the Group 3 article. They'll be more familiar than I will be with the ins and outs of the curriculum changes and any modifications to the assessment model, as they've been preparing for the change over the last year. Regards, CinchBug | Talk 18:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

As to Islamic History, this, imho, is a HUGE issue. I understand that IB is currently revising curriculum and incorporating Islamic History into HL European History. Isn't Islam a religion? Does IB offer Christian History? Jewish History? Buddhist History? And now IB is going to force this content into European History? Bad, bad move on IB's part, if you ask me. I was just reading through an IB student forum and there are questions galore about this move. Of course, I can't read the course guide, that's a secret. I wonder how long it will be until Islamic History gets merged with History of the Americas. If IB's curriculum is such an international standard, why wasn't it called Mid-East History in the first place? From the conversation amongst IB students, I understand that Islamic History goes back at least 600 years (contrary to the other IB History courses), and doesn't even get into any of the Israeli conflicts post 1960's! ObserverNY (talk) 11:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Islam is a religion, but Islamic History isn't - it's the history of the Islamic lands (which includes, for example, much of Spain and Portugual) and their contact with the West. As well as the religious aspect, there were many important historical activities taking place - the transmission of the "Arabic" numeral system from India (it wasn't really an Arab invention) to Europe, studies in chemistry, mathematics, architecture - all at a time when Europe was comparatively "backward" scientifically. From a more theological viewpoint, in the late Middle Ages there were strong links between Protestantism and Islam, which is useful background to, say, the Reformation. Given the importance of the Islamic world right now (Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia) I think studying Islamic History is useful - when I studied history it was against the backdrop of the Cold War and Soviet History played a major role as it helped students understand the modern world within a historical context. I wasn't taught how to be a good Marxist-Leninist, and I doubt the IB is teaching students how to be good Muslims ;-)

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 12:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

TFOWR You doubt that, do you? Did you read the Aga Khan's speech at IBO's 40th Birthday Bash? Oh it's a splendid sermon. Do they call the speeches of Islamic religious leaders sermons? I don't know, I guess I should have taken IB Islamic History. Should Islamic history (in the ancient form as I understand it was presented) be incorporated into other IB History courses on the Mid East/Europe as part of the whole? Of course, just as Native Americans, African-Americans, Hispanics, Jews, Irish, and immigrants in general should be incorporated into History of the Americas. But they should not be given their "own course" and it appears to me that IB is attempting to bury its PC faux-pas within other courses. Furthermore, if all of the other IB History courses only cover the most recent 100 years, then the Islamic history portion of the syllabus should go right through post-9/11. ObserverNY (talk) 13:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Cinchbug - I think that there needs to be transparency regarding this "transition" IB is conducting, what the course was called pre-2009 and what it will become. In my book, "transition" is a word used by educators to deflect any criticism of what they are attempting to do and provide cover for what may be controversial actions. My own school district has claimed to be in "transition" for the past 20 years. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 11:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY, as I stated earlier, I don't know why they chose that name. I don't teach in Group 3, so I don't participate in their curriculum review cycle.

As for transparency regarding the course transition, I thought I was clear above, but since you appear not to understand what I was saying, then I'll try to explain again in greater detail:

Every course in the IBDP goes through a scheduled 6-year review cycle, during which time IB schools and teachers are invited to provide feedback about the course curriculum, the exams (this is done after each examination session, in fact), and the assessment model (ie. the structure and number of external exams, and the structure of the course's internal assessments). At the conclusion of this cycle, new subject guides are produced and provided to schools before the fall semester in which they would begin teaching under the new guides. That is, if the subject guide is to go into effect for the May examinations in 2010, then it is provided to schools before the autumn of 2008 (usually that spring or summer, actually) so that teachers can instruct their first year HL students appropriately.

Some type of similar process takes place for all courses, be they state-mandated courses, courses produced by individual school districts, AP courses, or whatever. Each of these entities has their own method and timeline for reviewing and modifying the curriculum, of course. If I remember correctly, AP produces new course guides each year, so the opportunity for the "tweaking" of courses would therefore present itself each year, though I really don't know for certain exactly how or under what timeline they do their course reviews.

I hope that helps clear this up. Regards, CinchBug | Talk 12:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Cinchbug Six years ago would have been 2002. I happen to be one of those darn New Yorkers who lives by the motto "Never Forget". My son was a freshman in college when the planes hit. I couldn't get off Long Island to pick him up. Children in our community lost fathers in the attack. I will never forget the smoking remains of the WTC I viewed from the Throgs Neck Bridge when I was finally able to bring him back to school a week later. I see what IB's agenda is. It is an arm of UNESCO which uses our children as its pawns to become "global citizens". I understand the #1 name in the UK for boys last year was Mohammed. What religion do you think those "world citizens" will be? IB's lack of transparency, long-stretched out time periods for ANYTHING (2-3 yr. "authorization" process, 5 yr. school review, 6 yr. curriculum review, 2 yrs. to teach 150 hr. SL course) are all designed to suck up revenue while obfuscating what is really being "sold".

Speaking of the IB exam product, did you see this? http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_politics_100010_07/07/2009_108710

Why were the exams only held up in Greece? Something similar happened with Regents exams here in NY and the exams were pulled STATEWIDE, not just the County in which the offense occurred. If something similar were to occur with AP, I'm willing to wager the results would be held up NATIONWIDE, not just the State where the incident occurred. Does IB get a pass in this technological day and age simply because it is INTERNATIONAL? Is that why IB is allowed to isolate the transgression to a single Country? You're a mathematician, you're following my divisional logic here, right? What proof does anyone have that the "leak" in Geneva didn't "leak" elsewhere and the teachers there simply weren't caught? To me, it speaks to a basic lack of integrity, transparency and consistency of product and the organization that produces itObserverNY (talk) 13:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY, I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with regards to your reference to the terrorist attack on 9/11. Surely you're not suggesting that IB had something to do with that?

As for transparency, I wish that IB provided its subject guides freely on their webpage, but it's their intellectual property and they've elected not to do so. Regardless, I'm afraid that I don't see how the elements of the program you've just referenced amount to obfuscation.

As for the exams in Greece, I don't know any details about this. But if they've determined that a teacher cheated and provided exams to his and possibly other students in Greece, then I would think that IB is obliged to investigate the issue before awarding diplomas. If, instead, they awarded the diplomas now and then determined later that some of those diplomas couldn't be awarded and retracted them, then I think that would be a much bigger mess. So they've elected to determine the extent of the problem--which they seem to have concluded doesn't extend beyond Greece--before releasing scores and awarding diplomas. Hopefully they can figure out exactly what happened and resolve the issue soon. Regards, CinchBug | Talk 13:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I am suggesting that IB skews the curriculum of its History courses to advance an agenda and reflect History as UNESCO sees fit for children to learn. ObserverNY (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I know the DP grades were released in the U.S. already. So it clearly wasn't held up "worldwide". As to a "bigger mess", what does IB care? How many people are going to fly to Geneva to litigate? IBO concludes its own leak only leaked to Greece and makes the teacher the fall guy while its own employee goes unpunished? That hardly seems fair, now does it? ObserverNY (talk) 14:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

"Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." Use your own talk page as a soap box if you must. I do not see how you could link IB to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

La mome (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

A. I made no such claim that IB was linked to the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Cinchbug said, "Surely you aren't... blah blah blah. I clarified that with respect to IB Islamic History, it appears to me that IB is attempting to distort and skew the modern view of Islam by placing undue emphasis on ancient Islam and ignoring modern history. I shared why this bit of History is important to me personally. If that's a crime, shoot me. B.The discussion was IB Islamic History, this section, and the ongoing "transition" of the IB curriculum. Please don't try and turn this into sniping. If you have an opinion on Islamic History, please voice it. If not, please don't lecture me. ObserverNY (talk) 18:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The following supports the evolution of courses in the IB, and can be used in several of the Group articles. Will also post on IB DP page, that this conversation is taking place here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The IB system allows "school-based syllabuses," which consequently "has allowed the development of courses such as Peace Studies, World Religions, the Culture and History of Islam, Marine Science and Environment Studies."
Colin Jenkins (2001). "Global Issues: A Necessary Component of a Balanced Curriculum for the Twenty-First Century". International Education: Principles and Practice (2nd ed.). Routledge. pp. 94 et.seq. ISBN 0749436166. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |isnb13= ignored (help)

Adding to above: changed my mind about posting in IB DP discussion page for now. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper - with all due respect, how can IB claim it offers an "international standard" if it allows individual schools to develop their own courses and slap the IB label on them? Who devises the final exams, the school or IB? ObserverNY (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Crafty couture (talk) 22:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC) I'm an IB student who's doing HL history, and I think it's perfectly valid to specify Islamic history as part of the course. I'm studying medieval history (Which isn't mentioned at all as a possible subject on the wikipedia page. The recent curriculum change has come into effect now) and as part of the module on the Crusades, we study Islamic history and origins in considerable detail.

Islamic History one of Nine, not Eight in Subject 3

Out of curiosity, I went to the IBO website to see what it had to say about Islamic History, specifically as it relates to Group 3. This is what I found: http://www.ibo.org/diploma/curriculum/group3/

It is a requirement of the programme that students study at least one subject from group 3. Nine subjects are available:

   * business and management
   * economics
   * geography
   * history
   * information technology in a global society
   * Islamic history
   * philosophy
   * psychology
   * social and cultural anthropology.

All of these subjects may be studied at higher level or standard level.

So..... I don't know what you want to do with this information, this is what IBO has on its website TODAY. This Wikipedia article only lists 8. Just because it's a "touchy" subject, doesn't mean that editors should deliberately try to obfuscate the courses that IBO offers. I have made no edits to the article. But you cannot ignore this major discrepancy in description. ObserverNY (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

My fault (see above). I didn't understand that it was two separate topics, and queried why it had been listed as "History (including Islamic History)". I'll re-add Islamic History now, and re-order the subjects to follow the source (and hopefully make things clearer). Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. I've re-ordered to follow the source, which has History and Islamic History as two separate subjects. I feel really foolish - I had thought that Islamic History was a compulsory subject but it looks like it's one of eight options. That'll teach me not to read the source more thoroughly. Incidentally, I don't think there's any requirement that we order the same way as the source, but I've chosen to do it as it makes fairly clear that History and Islamic History are separate. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Except for some schools who have fall examinations (exclusively schools in the southern hemisphere, as far as I know), the Islamic History course is no longer offered. It will end entirely with the November 2009 examinations. The History of Europe and the Islamic World course (as well as the 20th Century World History course) are already in effect and their course guides were used to instruct first year HL students this past school year, starting in the fall of 2008. The first exams under the new curricula will occur in May 2010.

I had already removed the Islamic History course from the list, both here and on the IBDP page. But, indeed, I had forgotten about the folks in the southern hemisphere who will be teaching/studying it until November, so I would agree that it's probably best to leave it in for now, which is likely why the IB still lists it on their website. I'll put it back on the IBDP page, too, unless someone else has already done this.

Regards, CinchBug | Talk 19:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

As a Kiwi, you'd expect me to consider the Southern hemisphere, eh?! Thanks for the clear-up. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 19:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh, don't worry, I'm often criticized for my clearly "northern hemispheric" bias. ;) Regards, CinchBug | Talk 19:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

TFOWR & Cinchbug

Thank you for the corrections. It wasn't my intention to make you feel foolish. When I engaged in the discussion above, I assumed Islamic History was one of the History courses and only just today came across this reference. Thanks again. ObserverNY (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Nah, it's no problem and it was a good save on your part. I would always prefer to know that I'm mistaken about something instead of wallowing forever in ignorance! ;) Regards, CinchBug | Talk 21:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh, it wasn't you who made me feel foolish - it was own failure to properly read the source ;-) My justification is I'm learning as I go. It's all good - we got there in the end ;-) Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 22:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Consistent Capitalization/decapitalization

Since this was a rather big issue over at IBDP, (one I lost mind you) I respectfully request that this article be brought in compliance with the agreed upon lower case usage so that the IB series is consistent in style. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I started editing for consistency in style regarding capitalization and noticed that in the footnotes the sources are listed in a "reflist" as ibo.com not ibo.org. I don't know how to fix this.

La mome (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed the article needs a little clean up and some more sources, possibly. Curious why ObserverNY hasn't made the edits themself? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Cinchbug fixed the .com to .org. Can't speak for ONY. I am working on the Group 2 page now. I've had a burst of energy. The "History of IB" is killing me, although it is interesting. Just can't stand the drama---it is draining.

Cheers! La mome (talk) 22:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper - You were curious why I didn't make the edits myself? Oh stop, that's so funny. ObserverNY (talk) 23:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

statement re: IB History

I am not going to change it. However, I just wonder if you IB teachers have given due consideration to how this sounds: The IB Diploma Programme History course generally focuses on the political history of the 20th century. Furthermore, that whole messy little Islamic History issue was never fully fleshed out. Regards,ObserverNY (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on IB Group 3 subjects. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100726105146/http://www.pamojaeducation.com/courses to http://www.pamojaeducation.com/courses

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)